People v. Stephenson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Stephenson

202 A.D.2d 280, 608 N.Y.S.2d 662, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2431

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 15, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 202 A.D.2d 280 (People v. Stephenson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Stephenson, 202 A.D.2d 280, 608 N.Y.S.2d 662, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2431 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Howard Bell, J.), rendered May 3, 1991, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of one count of grand larceny in the third degree, one count of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, three counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, and two counts of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and sentencing her to concurrent terms of 1 to 3 years on the grand larceny, forged instrument and third degree possession counts and concurrent terms of 1 year on the fourth degree possession counts, unanimously affirmed.

There is no merit to defendant’s argument that the court improperly denied her motion to suppress identification testimony. The Westpac employees who showed a single photograph of defendant to a witness four hours before that same witness identified defendant in a lineup were not acting as police agents (see, People v Ray, 65 NY2d 282, 286). In addition, defendant’s right to counsel was not violated by the prearrest lineup procedures (see, People v LaClere, 76 NY2d 670, 672).

Defendant’s contention that certain evidence was improperly admitted at trial is unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. In any event, the People’s non-expert witnesses, who testified regarding their familiarity with the peculiar characteristics of defendant’s handwriting, were entitled to demonstrate such through the use of both disputed documents and documents known to have been written by defendant (Richardson, Evidence § 375 [Prince 10th ed]). Furthermore, there was a proper foundation for the admission of the computer printout of defendant’s account, which was kept in the regular course of business (CPLR 4518). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Asch, Rubin, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Howard Bell, J.), rendered May 3, 1991, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of one count of grand larceny in the third degree, one count of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, three counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, and two counts of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and sentencing her to concurrent terms of 1 to 3 years on the grand larceny, forged instrument and third degree possession counts and concurrent terms of 1 year on the fourth degree possession counts, unanimously affirmed.

There is no merit to defendant’s argument that the court improperly denied her motion to suppress identification testimony. The Westpac employees who showed a single photograph of defendant to a witness four hours before that same witness identified defendant in a lineup were not acting as police agents (see, People v Ray, 65 NY2d 282, 286). In addition, defendant’s right to counsel was not violated by the prearrest lineup procedures (see, People v LaClere, 76 NY2d 670, 672).

Defendant’s contention that certain evidence was improperly admitted at trial is unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. In any event, the People’s non-expert witnesses, who testified regarding their familiarity with the peculiar characteristics of defendant’s handwriting, were entitled to demonstrate such through the use of both disputed documents and documents known to have been written by defendant (Richardson, Evidence § 375 [Prince 10th ed]). Furthermore, there was a proper foundation for the admission of the computer printout of defendant’s account, which was kept in the regular course of business (CPLR 4518). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Asch, Rubin, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 280, 608 N.Y.S.2d 662, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-stephenson-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack